With all the speculation about the 25th Amendment being used against the unlawfully occupying Resident and Vice Resident, it is understandable why Patriots might think that this is a good thing, a way to get a Republican into the Executive Mansion. Get rid of Biden and Harris, and then Speaker McCarthy moves on up!
Before we continue, I can't avoid noting how many people are cheering this development despite having only just last week opposed McCarthy, an alleged swamp creature, becoming Speaker at all. Many wanted and expected Trump to somehow become Speaker to set him up to succeed to the presidency. Yet now everyone seems to be on the "Speaker McCarthy for POTUS" train. Odd how principles shift so quickly when passion and emotion take over...
When it is suggested that Biden and Harris should [or will] be 25th’d, such a double vacancy would have to be the result of 1.) impeachment and removal 2.) death or 3.) resignation, OR 4.) a temporary vacancy due to inability.
As already pointed out, with the Democrats in control of the Senate, we can reasonably rule out scenario 1. Perhaps Biden is suicided or forced to resign a la Nixon, but I think both scenarios 2 and 3 are unlikely. It is possible that Harris+Cabinet may use Section 4 to declare Biden “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and move to have Harris as Acting POTUS. But then the same would have to be done to Harris to create a double vacancy. Problem is that with the VP as Acting POTUS, there is no VP to trigger Section 4 (the Amendment’s drafters brain farted on this one), so scenarios 1, 2 or 3 would have to occur. Even if that happened, technically that’s only removing Harris, and if the inability is removed, then Biden resumes POTUS powers.
Even if by some miracle, a double vacancy is achieved, there’s still one massive constitutional problem. Despite being an officer of the House of Representatives, the Speaker is NOT an Officer of the United States of America and thus, not constitutionally eligible to succeed to the presidency.
For those with or willing to create a [free] JSTOR account, you can get a more in-depth study here. For those wanting a quicker read, here’s my shorter summary of the constitutional issues in play.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. – US Constitution: Article II, Section 1
The original intent of the Framers was that in the case of presidential vacancy, the VP wouldn’t immediately become POTUS but rather ACTING POTUS. His Ascendancy John Tyler ignored the Constitution and made himself POTUS, much to the objections of John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, the Whigs and even members of his own Cabinet. For whatever reason, nobody had a spine enough to stop Tyler from stealing the office and helping set into motion some major Disunion Dominoes (a story for another post). This issue was finally settled by the ratification of the 25th Amendment, clearly stating that upon a vacancy, “the Vice President shall become President.”
In cases of double vacancy, the Constitution authorized Congress with establishing what would be called the Presidential Succession Order. Congress passed Acts in 1792, 1886 and 1947, with several amendments to the latter, most recently in 2006.
Though the order in the 1792 Act included two members of Congress (President Pro Tempore and Speaker), such order violated the original intent of the Constitution, as was attested by the “Father of the Constitution” (not really the most accurate title, but I digress…) James Madison in both his notes from the Constitutional Convention and in letters such as one to Edmund Pendleton in 1792. For whatever reason, Washington signed the Act and no challenges were made to SCOTUS.
The rise of party factionalism in the 19th Century exposed the massive vulnerability Madison identified in 1792, and wisely in 1886, both President Pro Tempore and Speaker were removed from the order. But a push from the Democrats in 1947 got both put back into the order, albeit reversed from 1792, with Speaker then PPT. Again, nobody has challenged this unconstitutional measure up to SCOTUS, so to date it has not made any ruling on the matter.
But the Constitution is textually and contextually clear that both the Speaker and PPT are officers of the Congress and not “officers” of the USA within the meaning of the term “officer” in Article II. In multiple places in the Constitution, including Amendments, members of Legislature, including its officers, are explicitly differentiated from officers of the USA:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. – US Constitution: Article II, Section 4
Congress cannot impeach members of Congress. The process for the removal of members from Congress is explicitly covered earlier in Article I of the Constitution:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Since members of Congress are not relevant to the impeachment section of Article II, thus the reference to “civil Officers of the USA” cannot include members of the Legislature.
The Senators and Representatives [of Congress] before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, AND all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; – US Constitution: Article VI (emphasis added)
Again, Senators and Representatives are differentiated from executive and judicial Officers.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, OR as an officer of the United States, – US Constitution: Amendment XIV, Section 3 (emphasis added)
And again, explicit differentiation between members of Congress and officers of the USA.
Why the dudes on the style committee during the Constitutional Convention removed the “of the United States” from the original draft of Article II, is a mystery. Perhaps they were afraid of hitting a max character limit and thought it was a good way to axe 4 redundant words? In any case, all evidence indicates that without a doubt, the Framers intended the meaning to be “officer [of the United States].”
Again, see the above linked article for a more in-depth textual analysis. Even without the textual arguments, common sense is that allowing a Legislative officer to succeed to the presidency would be a massive violation of the separation of powers doctrine, as well as create a massive vulnerability to be exploited by Party, which was addressed by Madison in his opposition to the 1792 Succession Act.
It would be completely hypocritical for professed Patriots to advocate for the usage of a tactic that would require the violation of the Constitution, regardless of the purported good that such an action might attain. We cannot become the very enemies that we oppose.
Bills vs. Bengals. Player nearly dies. First time in NFL history a game was suspended due to an injury... a very unsual injury (to say the least). First time game just cancelled, despite the impact it would gave on playoff picture.
The final game of what week? 17... 17... I mean... 17? With all of the other chaos going on right now, this never before moment in America's most popular professional sport, happens in week 17. That number... coincidence? 🤔
Great line from a great movie...
As I was following today's episode of Speaker Shitdown, I was puzzled by two striking moments, which simply shouldn't happen during a meeting of the US House of Representives (well, sorta... nobody has actually been seated yet, so we technically don't have a House yet, which makes no sense how members-elect are conducting the House business of choosing a Speaker, but I digress...)
After the 6th ballot failed, a motion was made to adjourn to 8pm EST, so technically a recess. In a simple voice vote, it certainly sounded like the Nays had it. Yet, the clerk (presiding temporarily as chair since there is no Speaker) determined that the Yeas had it. Didn't even ask for a second vote to confirm. Nobody motioned for a role call vote, which was mind numbing given that the Nays very clearly had it.
When the group returned at 8pm, there was a motion to adjourn until tomorrow. This time the voice vote was actually too close to call, though still sounded like Nays had it. Mics were picking up chatter that sounded like somebody instructing the clerk that "the Yeas had it" (I was watching CSPAN, so don't know what other feeds picked up). But thankfully somebody motioned for a role call vote, which after some time and confusion, was conducted. Like with the votes for Speaker, a majority vote is 218. After the votes were given, with several late votes counted (I think they were either via proxy or changed?), the total was read as 216 Yea and 214 Nay and others not voting.
The motion to adjourn to tomorrow FAILED to attain a majority approval (218). Yet the clerk ruled that the motion passed. It didn't. It failed. They should still be there right now.
Either these idiots are indeed actors, and don't actually know what the hell is going on, or they do and just don't care.
In any case, this show needs a better editor to make sure mistakes like this don't make the final cut...
Reviewed tape. Here's the first vote:
Fat white dude with glasses to her right appears to be the person literally telling her what to say. There were absolutely calls for a ROLL CALL. They were flat out ignored. Then she says "does a member demand the As and As?" What a clown show!
Now to the second adjournment vote at 8pm EST
Again, this lady has to be fed every line and then reading from a script. She has no clue what she is doing. Again, the Nays had the voice vote, but chaos and confusion ensues. Fatty White Dude keeps trying to coach her along. He tells her that SHE has to call it as she "hears it." But she doesn't call it. At 4:54:54 HE tells her to say "the Ayes have it the yeas and nays are ordered," then corrected to "are requested." SHE didn't make the judgement. Fatty White Dude did. Who the hell is he? Does have have any procedural authority? Doubt it!
At 4:55:08 he tells her "continue to read." To read WHAT? Oh, the script right in front of her.
When the time expired, Yea-204, Nay-207, NV-23. Motion fails. Yet, votes were continued to be allowed, eventually she has to ask "have all members voted"? With a response of "no." Eventually the graphic gets to Y-209, N-211. She asks if anyone wishes to change their vote. Responses of "no." Are vote changes even allowed?? Votes just keep getting added, eventually Y-216, N-214, NV-4. Again, NO MAJORITY. Script didn't go according to plan... the script she is LITERALLY READING FROM.
after this fiasco...
Having watched video more closely today, it appears I mistook the man in question for Rep Jason Smith. Don't know whoever that guy is, the one basically telling the clerk what to say. I did notice how he didn't have to do that at all today. Maybe they read this thread and put more work into memorizing their lines and script last night? 🤔😂 As for Smith, he is still indeed a MAGA badass, and far less husky than the dude in glasses who was feeding lines. Apologies for the mistake and any confusion it may have caused!
We have a quite the serious Constitutional quagmire here. 20th Amendment states that:
and the terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin [...]
Riddle me this....
How are purported House members-elect lawfully participating in House business (election of a Speaker), if they are not actually members of the House until they are sworn in, which according to House rules, cannot happen until the election of a Speaker?
Sounds like the Constitution is long overdue for an amendment to clarify this glaring oversight by the Framers.
Furthermore, if our House has been functioning in such a disfunctional, arguably unconstitutional manner, seemingly since the beginning, have we ever truly had a legitimate Congress?
Time for a new Convention of the States to settle some of these big issues.
See Lincoln's famous "House Divided Speech" of 1858.
Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning.
Lincoln alludes to a conspiracy of ringleaders whose aim was to divide Americans by agitating the most contentious sectional political dispute of the Early Republican and Antebellum periods of 19th Century America. And how did they agitate?
its advocates will push [slavery] forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
It wasn't the slavery abolitionists, but the rather the slavery expansionists who were guilty of instigating the agitation. The abolitionists only increased their resolve in response to such agitation, which the leaders of the slave states had continually insisted that they were working on gradual emancipation and abolition, whereas their actions proved the exact opposite.
It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring.
We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen [...] and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill [...] we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in
Where there's smoke there's fire... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Hindsight allows more critical analysis and putting the puzzle pieces together to explain how and why events happened as they did.
Welcome or unwelcome, such decision [to declare slavery legal everywhere] is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown [...] To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.
Predicting, warning of impending strife if the slavery-expansionists agitators were permitted to continue chipping away at achieving their true goal. All the Republicans, all Lincoln aimed to do, was to prevent such an evil by winning at the ballot box, which they did. So the sore loser agitators gaslit and suckered hundreds of thousands into becoming rebels in defense of their unjust, immoral and evil cause. The deeper rabbit hole, is figuring out the real answer to cui bono? Not just Americans with power... mere puppets of international masters. A story for another day...
For additional historical context, and a more in-depth analysis of the slavery-agitating Disunion conspiracy Lincoln alluded to, also see
An absolutely BRILLIANT 🎥
Once again, art imitating life. Truly amazing how mediums like film can be used by geniuses for such deep messaging purposes.
it is a natural human impulse to make art that imitates the people, places, and events around them
Yes, Netflix... but give it a watch if you haven't already. Do you see all the things I see?
"In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance."
This great Patriot would subsequently get cheated out of being reelected in 1800, because he refused to feed the [mostly Jacobin Francophile] war pigs.
#LouisianaPurchaseQuidProQuo #JohnAdamsWon #1800RiggedForJefferson
If you read most of the headlines and articles coming out of the MSM regarding the piece of federal legislation currently being pushed, they'll sound something like this:
U.S. House poised to pass same-sex marriage bill, showing shift in attitudes
Have a read over the actual text of the bill up for vote.
"SEC. 2." holds no legal weight in any sense. It's not part of the law. Just ramblings to provide "context." So the talk about "same-sex couples" amounts to nothing.
SEC. 3. simply repeals DOMA, which did explicitly define marriage as being
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
SEC. 4. for the most part simply reiterates the Article IV, Section 1 "full faith and credit clause of the Constitution"; although keep in mind that FF&C only requires that a state recognize certain licenses issued in other states as being valid but doesn't necessarily require a state to transfer any license issued in another state under the laws of that state. For instance, a 16 year old can get a full drivers license in Alaska. If that 16 year old vacations in Illinois where the age requirement for a full license is 18 years old, IL MUST recognize that license as being valid and cannot penalize the 16 year old for driving. However it the 16 year old moves to IL and becomes a domiciled resident of the state, fully under its jurisdiction, IL does NOT have to issue the 16 year old a full drivers license just because they already had one in another state, nor do they have to accept the expired AK license or transfer it into a IL license. The new 16 year old IL resident can apply for a restricted drivers license, like any other 16 year old resident of IL. In the same manner, just because NY might give two dudes a marriage license/certificate, if they move to TX, the laws of the TX apply and the dudes would not meet the criteria as required by the laws of TX. The state doesn't have to issue them a new license, or count the NY one as being applicable. This same principle applies to all sorts of licenses... teachers, practice law or healthcare... granted, this kind of gets at the real issue re: marriages... marriage licenses are BULLSHIT. Marriage is a covenant between man, woman and God. The civil kingdom has no authority to violate the natural or revealed laws... but I digress...
SEC. 5. Unlike in DOMA, this bill never explicility defines marriage. It merely says that the federal government will recognize a valid marriage as being
between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into
In other words, this is simply a restatement of the 10th Amendment. The regulation of marriage is a power left to the states. This is what SCOTUS ruled in Windsor when it "struck down" DOMA (although the law still remains, hence why social liberals are pushing to have it repealed and replaced with this RFMA).
SEC. 6. actually does provide substantial protections for religious liberty. Granted, what's the whole point of a law if there can be so many exemptions?
SEC. 7. still bans polygamy, which technically, the federal government cannot do... after all, Windsor said that regulation of marriage is a state matter, not a federal one, and its under this legal premise that this very bill is being justified to replace DOMA.
One can only wonder why Ted Cruz's proposed bill in 2014 wasn't taken as seriously as this effort, considering it essentially would have created the same impact... a restoration of the states' rights to regulate marriage, and the federal government simply recognizing licenses issued by states under their laws.
So what's really going on here?
What proponents want you do believe, is that when/if SCOTUS revisits and reverses the precedent set in Obergefell, this new law (replacing DOMA, which is still technically, the law) will somehow force all states to legalize same-sex "marriage." But it will do no such thing. In 35 states, marriage is currently still BY LAW (their constitution and/or statute) defined as being between only a man and a woman. Those laws were never actually changed. Obergefell merely signaled that SCOTUS would ignore them if plaintiffs challenged them. That's how the judicial process works.
Suppose that Obergefell is overturned. All that means is that if plaintiffs try to challenge those existing state laws, the current SCOTUS won't rule in their favor. Why? Because "same-sex marriage", like abortion, isn't actually a Constitutional right, and the regulation of marriage is a matter left to the states per Windsor and the 10th Amendment. States with judicial activists who attempted to "legalize" a new definition of "marriage" without the action of the state legislature or vote of the people, will no longer have to bend the knee to such tyranny. They won't be required to recognize or honor bullshit licenses issued under duress since Obergefell, or in some states previous state level cases (all of this bullshit started in MA when Romney was governor and under his leadership, he and the legislature cowered like little bitches to the MA court).
The reversal of Roe v. Wade has signaled that the current SCOTUS is keen on restoring states rights and to some degree, cleaning up the damage the prior courts had done for culture war issues over the past several decades. The winds have shifted. If social activists want changes, then they're going to have to start winning hearts and minds to get actual laws written instead of relying on bullshit lawfare.
Of course, millions of NPCs on both sides, will read clickbait headlines like the one linked above, not actually read the text of the bill, and buy into whichever narrative is being pushed towards their predispositions... right now cultural left are praising Congress for "defending same-sex marriage" while those on the cultural right are freaking out that "this will make America Sodom & Gomorrah!" Hate to break it to you, but we're already well past Sodom and Gomorrah by now. But it will be quite entertaining watching leftists go full meltdown in a year or so once they realize that this bill is not only NOT a win for them, but is a poison pill for nationalized same-sex "marriage"
According to ballotpedia...
In the Aug 2nd primary election, a total of ~219,000 votes were cast, including ~68,000 for the Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez. The combined vote total for the 5 Republican candidates was ~146,000 votes.
In the Nov 8th general election, a total of ~305,000 votes have reportedly been counted so far, allegedly including ~154,000 votes for Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez. MAGA Republican Joe Kent reportedly has ~149,500.
So they're trying to tell us that almost 90,000 more votes were cast in the general, and basically all of them went to the DemocRAT Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez? 🤔
Reminder, this is Washington State, which uses 100% no excuse mail in (or drop box) ballot voting. Clark County WA has some of the worst rolls in the country. Primaries are open and nonpartisan, with top 2 candidates advancing.
Ballotpedia estimates population in the district at ~770,000. Even if we assume that 2/3 are eligible voters, thats about 500,000 voters. So allegedly a 60% general turnout, compared to a 43% primary turnout, and a 40% increase in turnout from primary to general.
In 2020, the primary saw 241,000 votes. The general had 418,000 votes, 100,000 more than this year. So unless the District lost 100,000 voters to death/moving/redistricting, that either means 100,000 ballots have yet to be counted, or 100,000 people did not vote, or something fishy is going on.
One might say, but lower turn out for midterm years. Yes, the 2018 midterms only had 310,000 votes for the general. But excluding 2020, the three previous presidential election years were right around 300,000 votes. Even in 2008, it was 338,000. Midterms compared to presidential, are consistent, up until 2020, with the record 418,000 votes.
Following the 2020 Census, the 3rd district was slightly changed during redistricting, losing Klickitat county to the 4th district and gaining an additional small sliver of Thurston county from the 10th district. The new 3rd district was marginally more favorable for Republicans, voting for Trump in 2020 by a margin of 4.2%, as opposed to the old district's 3.7%.
So by all measures, a Trump backed MAGA candidate was at even stronger odds to win this year. And yet, here we are with reported numbers that make absolutely no sense and Joe Kent about to have the race stolen from him.
At this point, having watched a Presidential election, and two Congressional and state election cycles being stolen right before your eyes, and having listened to and believed in years of "trust the plan" promises, if you don't now at the very least consider the possibility that you've been gaslit, then you're no more awakened that the idiots still voting for Democrats and RINOs.
"Q" is a psy op, in other words: "gaslighting." This is undeniable. We certainly hope it is gaslighting having been used for good (COIN), e.g. keeping the populace calm while the greatest sting operation in history has been wrapping up.
However, there has to come a point in time, when one must draw a line and say enough is enough, before determining that it has all ironically, been the greatest grift in history.
So which is it? Sting or grift?
As is currently reported:
The 6 Republican House candidates combined for roughly 750,000 votes.
The 6 Democrat House candidates combined for roughly 900,000 votes.
Roughly 40,000 House votes combined went to Independents or minority party candidates.
The Republican Governor candidate (Drazan) has roughly 750,000 votes.
The Democrat Governor candidate (Kotek) has roughly 815,000 votes.
The Independent Governor candidate (Johnson) has roughly 150,000 votes.
Two other Governor candidates have a combined 11,000
I calculate 1,689,974 total House votes, but 1,729,387 total Governor votes.
That's a difference of nearly 40,000 Oregonians who apparently only voted for Governor. Does that make any sense?
We can assume that all 750,000 Republican House voters, also voted Republican for Governor. We can assume that 85,000 Democrat House voters did not vote Democrat for Governor, but Independent/minority. But the math still doesn't add up.
My gut feeling is that this 40,000 different is the result of completely fake votes given to Kotek to offset 40,000 Democrat House voters who went to Johnson for Governor.
Considering that right now the reported difference between Kotek and Drazan is only 65,000 and there appear to be 40,000 fake votes for Kotek, it's really only a 25,000 gap. And this is with an estimated 14% votes yet to be counted (which would be roughly 270,000 votes).
Check my math. I'm I that bad at math, or is there really something fishy going on??